this sunday, a high stakes tuesday primary. rick santorum's ground game storming for both in wisconsin and making the common man contract with mitt romney. >> now it's time for wisconsin. to do what i did the other day, not just for one strike, not just two strikes, but to go three strikes in a row and knock obama out of the game. >> but romney strikes back, winning endorsements from some of the marquise names in republican politics as his supporters warn of the dire consequences of a continuing fight. >> there is no way that anyone can convince me that having a floor fight at the convention in tampa in august is a recipe for victory in november. on the contrary, i think it's a

recipe for disaster. >> can rick santorum broaden his support and make the case that a bruising convention fight won't hand a victory to president obama? we'll ask him. plus, president obama's historic health care legislation in critical condition. a skeptical supreme court questions whether it's constitutional. what affect will the fate of health care have on the fall campaign? member of the judiciary committee, chuck schumer joins us live. finally, a special "meet the press" roundtable led by joe scarborough, insight and analysis on the politics of 2012. with tom friedman and david brooks from the "new york times." contributor editor for "time" magazine, jon meacham, former democratic congressman harold ford and msnbc's mika brzezinski. captions paid for by nbc-universal television

good morning. the final 48 hours before the key wisconsin primary. >> this was an uphill battle foç me if you look back three or four weeks ago. now we're looking like we're going to win this thing. >> the next three days, shake this place up. >> well, tuesday could be rick santorum's last chance to shake up the race and he joins us now from wisconsin. senator santorum, good morning and welcome back to "meet the press." >> thank you, savannah, good to be with you. >> you have spent the week shuffleboarding your way through wisconsin yet our poll has romney ahead by seven points. you call yourself the candidate of the rust belt of the midwest. can you afford to lose another midwestern state and still make that argument that you are the candidate who can win these battlegrounds in this election? >> you look at the voters that we're attracting. they were the key to the reagan

coalition of winning indiana, ohio, wisconsin and places like that. they're lower income, folks who are blue collar workers that were the reagan democrats and the reagan moderates, if you will, that joined us. that's the kind of votes we're getting here. you look at the crowds and even the polls, we he feel very, very comfortable that we'll do very, very well in wisconsin. we're being outspent four or five to one. not as bad as we were in ohio and uhl ill but still, the fact that we're hanging in there despite the fact of the barrage of money and insiders and washington folks saying this race is over, this race is over, i think it's amazing, frankly. i'm so excited and so thrilled that people of wisconsin are standing by us. >> reince priebus had this to say, whoever wins wisconsin is going to have serious bragging rights. i think the election on tuesday is going to be pivotal in making the determination on ending the

nomination fight. would you agree? is wisconsin do or die for you? >> i don't think wisconsin is do or die but i think he is right. i think it's going to be a strong signal. look, i keep coming back to the fact that when, you know, you look at the odds that are against us. i mean, i think david would like to have these odds versus goliath, i think. this is a herculean task that we're involved in. it's going well. we have -- we've made record numbers of phone calls out of our victory -- our campaign offices. we have volunteers flowing in like we've never seen before, really since iowa. the grassroots effort has been spectacular and the response that a lot of folks don't want this race to be over. there's one thing worse than a convention, a convention site and that's picking the wrong candidate, not picking the best candidate to give us the best chance to win. >> let's look ahead to april 24thç. the pennsylvania primary. the latest poll has you in a

statistical dead heat with mitt romney. would you be willing to acknowledge as newt gingrich did with regard to georgia if you can't win in your home state, you have to business in this race? >> i think we're going to win in our home state. there were two polls out since then that have us up 20 and 17. the one that has us up 2, governor corbett, the governor right now was running the primary, that poll had him dead heat with his challenger and he won by like 30 points that poll is always, frankly, an outliar. i just laugh because it's never right. >> but you agree, pennsylvania is a must-win for you? >> pennsylvania, we have to win pennsylvania. we're going to win pennsylvania. i have no doubt about that. >> okay. senator rubio said this week that the moment you acknowledged that you can't get to 1,144 delegates with be that magic number, quote, the primary is over. you have said it is likely you won't get to 1,144. my question to you, if romney has more delegates by your math

and everyone else's math, he's won more states, won the popular vote and even by your own admission it's the longest of long shots for you to get to 1144, why isn't it time to step aside? >> first off it's not the longest of long shots. so many of the delegates who are coming to the convention are unbound delegates. this idea that governor romney has all of these delegates and this huge lead, the numbers don't bear that out. >> would you acknowledge he's the most likely nominee as newt gingrich did this week? >> well, he's ahead right now but less than half the votes -- half the delegates have been selected. you know, just go back four years ago. governor romney was still in the race at this point. in other words, when this percentage of delegates had been selected governor romney was still in the race and he wasn't doing nearly as well as we were. i just think we have a lot of panic among the establishment. the establishment has tried to convince the republicans across this country and conservatives

across this country that they need mitt romney shoved down their throat and they're trying everything they can. they're not making the sale on the money, on the endorsement, on the policies on what he's standing for because he's all over the map. they have to make the case of inevitability. the poll came out that 60 plus percent of the people in this race don't want me to get out of the race. >> you mentioned party leaders panicking. the question is at what cost is your continued presence in the race? marco rubio said i think it would be very excited to watch a contested convention. i thinkç it will be exciting f the obama campaign to witness and catastrophic for republicans. this is the judgment of your colleagues in the republican party. are you blind to the potential damage of a contested convention? do you really think it will not cause harm to your party come november?

>> all i'm saying is this, that four years ago, we had a nominee in march, how did that work out for us when we didn't have the right nominee? the democrats went into the middle of the summer fighting out, slugging it out. the democrats establishment was saying the same thing, we have to end this, it's going to hurt us. no, it doesn't. what hurts us is not getting the right candidate. i would make the argument the shorter this campaign, the shorter this campaign in the general election, the better advantage for the republican nominee because you neutralize president obama's huge money advantage going into the fall. no matter who the candidate is, president obama will have a huge running advantage going into the fall. >> fair enough. but you would acknowledge that there will come a time or place where you might be able to recognize that it's time to step aside? is there any point before tampa where you think you'll be able to see that? are you capable of knowing that? that you're potentially doing more damage than good? >> well, you know, all i would

say is that, you know, last time around, mike huckabee stayed in the race until john mccain got the required number of votes and then he got out. it was important to go out and give conservatives the best chance to have a conservative nominee. we're going to go out and fight to make sure that we have the best chance to win this general election and the best chance is to do -- remember, savannah, only one time in the last almost 120 years has a republican defeated a democratic incumbent for president. one time. almost every single time, the establishment said let's run a moderate, he have to win by appealing to moderates. we have to get this horrible president out, no matter who it was. the only one time we won was ronald reagan. the moderates were saying we have to win, we have to win. we can't win with a conservative. it's the only time we won. that's lesson we have to learn in 201. >> is there any scenario you can see where you leave the race before tampa?

>> i would say, you know, i go back to what governor huckabee's motto was, if governor romney gets that required number, then without a doubt, if he's at that number, we'll step aside. but right now, you know, he's not there. he's not even close to it. like i said, less than half the delegates have been selected. we have a long way to go. we'll fight the fight to make sure we can win. this is about winning. this isn't about a cause. this is about making sure we have the best candidate to take on barack obama, not the author of the first government takeover of headti care that led to the second one at the federal level. that's the major problem with governor romney's campaign is that he has -- he takes the biggest issue in this race and takes it off the table. we can't, as republicans, afford to let that happen. >> let's talk about some of the endorsements that mitt romney has gotten. paul ryan this week, senator marco rubio. he has all the leading members of the republican party, past and present. you've been dismissive of these endorsements. at what point does this not reflect on you somewhat?

these are members of your party who have made a judgment that it's romney, not senator santorum who has what it takes to win. >> if you listen to the endorsements, you know, they all say that, you know, the race has to end. same argument we've just been discussing here. it's not a great endorsement of governor romney. it's saying we need to end this. i would say this, everybody's entitled to a mistake in their life. rubio and ryan are pretty young. they'll recover from it. >> their endorsements were a mistake? >> well, absolutely, of course. anybody who endorses my opponent is a mistake. they should be endorsing me. we're getting the endorsements of people across the state of wisconsin. we're picking up key senators and house members, former speaker of the house here. the grass roots folks. people who will go out and work, put their organizations in place and help us out as opposed to, you know, the folks who aren't even here in the state of wisconsin, many of them won't have a vote on tuesday. >> senator, you talk so much

about the establishment, are you not a member of the establishment? you have spent almost your entire career in elected politics in washington, d.c. let's put your reputation as a straight talker to the test here. are you not a career politician and member of the establishment? >> well, if you go back and look at my record, i was sort of the guy mixing it up when i was in the house and in the senate. i don't think anyone would call me a member of the establishment when we were the person who put in term limits, for example, for committee chairman and for leaders, something that had never been done before. someone who exposed scandal after scandal when i was in congress. someone who took away the subsidized haircuts and the subsidized meals of members of congress. we were someone who went out there and fought for the little guy. i was always a big manufacturing guy, energy guy. we were the conservative fire brand, not someone who was a go-along, get-along politician. look, i understand a lot of these folks who were inside the bubble in washington, d.c.

you know, look, i can understand it because i was there at one point in time. you lose perspective. it's a group think there. it was a great blessing for me to be out in the last six years, see and feel what's really going on across america. we're reflecting that in this campaign. >> well, we have to leave it there.ç senator rick santorum, thank you for your time, sir, we appreciate it. >> thanks, savannah. coming up, the president's signature health care legislation faced tough constitutional questions this week in the supreme court. will the lobby upheld and if not, what's plan "b" for the president and democrats? chuck schumer joins me live. plus, the wisconsin gop primary two days away. we'll have a key endorsement in the republican race, right here when we come back. [ male announcer ] once upon a time, in neckarsulm, a great roar was heard

and things changed. children adjusted dreams. victories became habitual. thumbs grew new calluses. hollywood hopped on the bandwagon. air traveled in style. and for the first time ever, journalists ran out of adjectives. and so concludes chapter 1 of the legendary audi r8. ♪ not in this economy. we also have zero free time, and my dad moving in. so we went to fidelity. we looked at our family's goals and some ways to help us get there. they helped me fix my economy, the one in my house. now they're managing my investments for me. and with fidelity, getting back on track was easier than i thought. call or come in today to take control of your personal economy. get one-on-one help from america's retirement leader. here's a chance to create jobs in america.

oil sands projects, like kearl, and the keystone pipeline will provide secure and reliable energy to the united states. over the coming years, projects like these could create more than half a million jobs in the us alone. from the canadian border, through the mid west, to the gulf coast. benefiting hundreds of thousands of families throughout the country. this is just what our economy needs right now. coming up, we'll go back to wisconsin for a live presidential endorsement. then, democratic senator chuck schumer on the fight over health care and the president's all energy development comes with some risk, but proven technologies allow natural gas producers to supply affordable, cleaner energy, while protecting our environment. across america, these technologies protect air - by monitoring air quality and reducing emissions... ...protect water - through conservation and self-contained recycling systems... ... and protect land - by reducing our footprint

and respecting wildlife. america's natural gas... domestic, abundant, clean energy to power our lives... that's smarter power today. and now i build them. i am a bigger is better kind of guy. i absolutely love building locomotives. i knew i wanted to design locomotives from when i was very young. [ jahmil ] from the outside it looks like such a simple device. when you actually get down into the bare bones of it, there's so much technology that's submerged. [ rob ] my welds are a signature, i could tell my welds apart from anybody's. you lay down that nice bead and you look at it, i love it. they don't go together by themselves. there are a lot of little parts, and everyone has their job. [ scott ] i'd love to see it out there on the open tracks. and when i e it, i'm gonna know that i helped build that thing. [ train whistle blows ] here she comes! [ bell clanging ] [ train whistle blows ] wow!

[ charlie ] well, it's one thing seeing them built, but then to see them out here, pulling freight across america, it makes us proud. ♪ ♪ why do you whisper, green grass? ♪ [ all ] shh! ♪ why tell the trees what ain't so? ♪ [ male announcer ] dow solutions use vibration reduction technology to help reduce track noise so trains move quieter through urban areas all over the world. together, the elements of science and the human element can solve anything. [ all ] shh! [ male announcer ] solutionism. the new optimism. we're back. before we go to senator chuck schumer in new york, we wanted to spend a few more minutes on the republican race for the white house with the high stakes wisconsin primary just two days away now. joining me live from milwaukee is wisconsin's freshman

republican senator ron johnson. he was elected with strong tea party support in 2010. until this morning he has remained uncommitted in the republican presidential race. senator, i know you're here to break news this morning. throw your support behind a candidate. so, without further adieu, who will you be supporting? >> mitt romney. good morning, savannah. i'm the business guy from oshkosh, wisconsin. i have 33 years experience in the private sector. i've been to washington now for 15 months. i certainly understand a big part of our problem is the fact that this president and members of his administration have no private sector experience whatsoev whatsoever. and governor romney has 25 years of experience in the private sector, plus, he has executive experience in government. and i never did intend to endorse anybody but i've had the opportunity to meet with governor romney over the last couple weeks,ç had long phone conversations with him. i've come away from those conversations fully convinced that governor romney is the

person to lead our party, to lead our nation. he fully understands the gravity of our financial situation. he's dedicated toward solving those problems. he is ready, willing and able to lead this nation, unlike president obama. today i'm happy to announce my full support and my endorsement of governor romney to be the next president of the united states. i'm looking forward to working with governor romney and his team in my new roll. i've been asked by leader mcconnell to lead an effort, coordinate our agenda and our message in the house, the senate, with the presidential candidate, so we can communicate to the voters of america, the very clear choice in our approach. we actually want to rely on the private sector. we know it's freedom in the free market system versus president obama's approach, growing government, growing government intrusion in our lives. i'm looking forward to making sure president obama is a one-term president. >> do you think senator

santorum, newt gingrich and ron paul should get out at this point? >> listen, this is nothing negative about the other candidates. i have a great deal of respect for those individuals that love this country, that have actually exposed themselves to this process that's not particularly fun, you know, you're putting your life on hole, you're putting your life under a microscope. this is nothing negative about the other candidates. it's just a recognition of the fact that governor romney has won more delegates. he's the only person that really has a chance to take a winning number of delegates into the convention. we have seven months before the election. our top priority as fiscal conservatives is to make sure president obama has retired. he's utterly failed to lead. >> very quickly, do you think it's dangerous for the republican party's prospects in november to have this primary process continue on, perhaps, into a contested convention? >> listen, we've had a spirited debate. i think it is time to end this so we can spend the next seven months pointing out the fact

that president obama has failed to lead. he's had four budgets now. he's not proposed a solution to save social security and medicare. his budget last year lost lost in the united states senate 0-97. last week his budget lost 0-114. america hungers for leadership. president obama is not providing that. it's time to change direction in this country. that's why i'm coming out urging the voters of wisconsin, let's lead. show this a time to bring this process to an end so we can focus our attention on retiring president obama. >> senator johnson, thank you for your time this morning, sir, we appreciate it. >> thanksç for having me on. we will turn now to the chairman of the democratic policy committee and member of the senate judiciary committee, the senior senator from new york, chuck schumer. welcome to you and welcome back to "meet the press." >> glad to be back. >> let's talk about the president's health care law. if a picture tells a story

better than a thousand words, we can take a look at the cover in "the week." the supreme court's skeptical scrutiny of obama care. would you acknowledge, sir, that the president's health care law is in peril of being overturned this morning? >> no, i would not acknowledge that. i've been on the judiciary committee for 30 years in the house and the senate. and one thing i've learned, you can't tell by the questioning as to how the court is going to rule. there was a case a few years ago, the voting rights act case, very important, the questioning was hostile. it was supported 8-1. when the courts of appeals looked at the health care case, very conservative justices -- judges, judge silverman in the d.c. circuit, judge sutton in the 6th circuit asked the same kind of hostile questions and then rule for the law. let me say this, savannah, should the supreme court overturn this law, it would be so far out of the mainstream that the court would be the most

activist in a century. let's look at it. for the last century, the commerce clause has been regarded as an ability of the federal government to do many things, the height was the wickard case in 1942, 70 years ago, never been repudiated where they told a farmer that he couldn't grow as much wheat as he wanded. just scalia confirmed a different case. >> that brings me to my question, actually, because of those writings, i think a lot of administration lawyers were quite confident they would get perhaps not an easy ride but not so rough a ride in the supreme court as they did this week. here you have justice kennedy, a swing vote on these issues, doesn't seem the administration can win without him, he's openly skeptical and said there is something unprecedented about what the administration did here. >> i would say this, anyone who judges how the court is going to rule based on the questions

hasn't looked at the history of the questions before and then the results. >> would you consider a 5-4 decision along ideological lines an activist court? >> with citizens united where they took 100 years of precedence and allowed corporations and others to put so much money into campsigns when they hadn't been allowed before. >> and to uphold it on those same ideological lines, is that just as activist in your mind? >> well, the bottom line is, there is a broad tradition of support for extension of the commerce clause as i mentioned. as recentlies a2005, a very broad case. >> there are two cases in the '90s that reigned in the clause. the lopez and the morris case. >> that is totally different.

it had no effect on interstate commerce. if you want to make a law about a gun near a school, that doesn't affect interstate commerce. health care does. it's 16.5% of the economy. if they were to throw out the health care law, things like medicare, social security, food safety laws could be in jeopardy on the very same grounds. it would be a dramatic, 180 degree turn of the tradition of the commerce clause. >> i know you and i are enjoying this constitutional law seminar we're running this morning but let's look at this as a lay person. if you're sitting back and watching and you ask yourself at home, how is it that the congress and the president, a constitutional scholar no less, was able to pass a law that at a minimum has serious constitutional questions about it, how would you answer that? >> well, i'd say, first, that of course you take constitutional questions seriously. but at the time and still today, most constitutional scholars say it will be upheld, harvey wilkerson, he's the dean of the very conservative judges on the

courts of appeal. he said it would be a heavy lift to overturn this law. and let's look at the context. the idea of a mandate came from republicans. it was proposed by the heritage foundation in 1993. people like newt gingrich and bob dole and that, you know, supported it in those days. in 2009, mitt romney, the republican -- in the middle of the health care debate, the likely republican nominee, said that the mandate was what should be used as opposed to democrats who were then arguing for expanding medicare. so it was true at the time of the legislation. it's true today. that it's really outlier to say that this case would be thrown out on constitutional grounds. >> let's talk briefly, again, about the oral argument. the solicitor general don verley had what most people consider to be a rough go at the supreme

court and a rough start. take a listen. >> insurance has become the predominant means of paying for health care in this country. in turn has become the predominant means of paying for health care in this country. for most americans,ç for more than 80% of americans, the insurance system does provide effective access. excuse me. >> senator, are you satisfied with the quality of the advocacy on the government's side? and stumbles aside, do you feel he had a good answer for the justices about where are the outer limits of what the government can do, if they can force you to buy insurance? >> look, on the substance he had very good answers. you know, drinking water, coughing, that's not going to affect these justices. they've been studying this case and the precedents and everything else for the last

several months. they'll be studying it for the next several months. it's the substance of argument that matters. i think the solicitor general on the substance of the arguments did a very good job. he distinguished between broccoli, for instance, and health care. if you don't eat broccoli it doesn't raise the cost for your neighbor. it doesn't mess up the whole market. if you don't take health care, it costs every one of us $1,000, on average, in our insurance policies. it makes all the providers, the hospitals and doctors, twist themselves in knots. it's a totally different argument. i think he made those pretty well. >> speaking of the argument for health care, i want to play you on this program two years ago this week on the issue of health care. >> i think as people learn about the bill and now that the bill is enacted it's going to become more and more popular. i predict, david, by november, those who voted for health care will find it an asset.

those who voted against it will find it -- >> sir, i don't have to remind you, the latest polling shows that more than two-thirds of americans think the health care law should be overturned altogether or at least in part. we're good enough to remind you of your past statements on this program. >> thank you. >> how did you and other democrats get it so wrong? >> i don't think we did. here's what's happening. there are lots of good things in the health care law, savannah. and people have them right now. they're learning the good parts of it. there are 2.5 million kids, 21 to 26, many out of work who are now on their parents' plan. >> it's been two years and two-thirds of the country wants to see the law overturned in some way. >> i this i, savannah, as people learn the good things about this law and -- remember the campaign paged against it, it was a parade of horribles. those are gradually fading. there are no death panels. i had a firefighter come to me and say by labor day i'll lose my health care insurance because

of this law. well, he won't. it's the good things in the law, helping seniors with prescription drugs,ç helping young people get health insurance, become more and more known, the law becomes more and more popular. >> senator, let's talk 2012 politics very quickly as you can see, romney is getting the endorsements of key members of the republican party, senator rubio this week, congressman ryan. is there any doubt in your mind that he's the person president obama will face? >> i'm not going to prognosticate on the race. i tell you this, these endorsements show the weakness of mitt romney should he become the candidate. he'd be saddled with the paul ryan budget. the other one is marco rubio. they're trying to make amends for the horrible shape they're in with hispanic voters. hispanic voters are hostile to mitt romney and republicans because of their anti-immigration stands. romney said the arizona law was a great law. he's against the dream act. he said very harsh things on

immigration. if the poll numbers continue, that hispanics are for the democrats 70-14, there is no way mitt romney or any other republican can win the presidency or take back the senate. >> we have to leave it there, senator chuck schumer. thank you for your time, sir. >> thank you. nice to talk to you. coming up, is it the beginning of the end for the republican race? and what are the political implications of the health care fight at the supreme court? the host of msnbc's "morning joe," joe scarborough will lead the roundtable. he'll be joined by tom friedman the roundtable. he'll be joined by tom friedman and david brooks oftleemotionall aren't you getting a little industrial? okay, there's enough energy right here in america. yeah, over 100 years worth. okay, so you mean you just ignore the environment. actually, it's cleaner. and, it provides jobs. and it helps our economy. okay, i'm listening. [announcer] at conoco phillips we're helping power america's economy with cleaner affordable natural gas...

more jobs, less emissions, a good answer for everyone. so, by reducing the impact of production... and protecting our land and water... i might get a job once we graduate.

[ male announcer ] from our nation's networks... ♪ ...to our city streets... ♪ ...to skies around the world... ♪ ...northrop grumman's security solutions are invisibly at work, protecting people's lives... [ soldier ] move out! [ male announcer ] ...without their even knowing it. that's the value of performance. northrop grumman.

welcome back to "meet the press." i'm joe scarborough, along with mika brzezinski, here with a special roundtable discussion. i'm joined by tom friedman, "new york times" columnist, contributor to "time" magazine and author of the forthcoming

biography on tmas jefferson, jon meacham, harold ford and "new york times" columnist david brooks. welcome to all. tom friedman, let's begin with you. you just returned from new zealand. my first question should be why did you just return from new zealand? i would still be there but you have a good column out. let's read it. you talk about elephants down under, the days when there were liberal republicans and conservative democrats. we don't have compulsory voting, special interest money is out of control and we lack any credible third party that could capture enough of the senate to force democrats and raynes to compete for votes there. we've lost our abidiuy to do big, hard things together yet everything we have to do, tax reform, fiscal reform, health care reform, energy policy is big and hard and can only be done together. tom, you described this as dysfunctional. didn't this the past week where the president's key legislation

appears to be on the verge to being overturned, doesn't this make us look even more dysfunctional to our allies? >> no doubt. this really is the problem, joe. on all these big issues, energy, health care, education, we seem only capable of suboptimal solutions. suboptimal solutions that lack any kind of planning, due diligence. everything feels like a goldberg contraption that we cobble together at the last moment. >> in this case, we cobble together a piece of legislation that chuck schumer is saying a year and a half later, the american people don understand but when they understand it, two-thirds of them won't be against it. doesn't that -- there's a problem. >> there's two issues there. how long do we remain a great country when all we can do on biggest challenges we face are produce suboptimal outcome. on health care -- that's partly a failure of communication, it seem to me.

how do you go a year and a half where so many americans don't even understand the benefits of this legislation when they apply to them? and that goes to this administration which i think has been adismal at communicating. >> let's talk about that, david brooks, that did continue this week during our oral arguments in the supreme court. we have jeffrey toobin who says train wreck for barack obama and the supreme court today. ezra klein of "the washington post" says you can mark the point, page 14, when the liberal justices decide they are screwing up and step in to make his argument for him. and daniel foster of the "national review" said wow, does the solicitor general know that orals were today? how bad was this for the white house? >> it was pretty bad. i'm not sure it was totally communication, though. we're having a big debate over the role of government. what this bill does, what the

mandate does, it compels people to enter into a contract that's against their self-interest with an insurance company in order to subsidize other people who are going to benefit. you're compelling people to enter into something new. that's a step towards centralization, an advance of federal power. whether it's constitutional or in the, i don't know. it's a legitimate constitutional issue. it plays into what tom was talking about. there's a big debate about role of government and conservatives are on one side for small ç government, liberals are on the other for bigger government but there's no other alternative to find another way. >> when you get talking, i thought his substance was on. the interesting thing which joe and mika have said on the show many times, to your point, david, it was conservatives who advance the argument of individual mandate 15 years ago because they viewed it as a pure market driven -- >> democrat republicans champi >> not the argument but it's

come full circle. >> here's write would come out. the general philosophy is we have to centralize the goals. we have to set goals. let individuals come up with their own way to meet them. my problem is it's tied to this thing called ipad. 15 people trying to regulate the health care still. i think it would be politically acceptable if we said we're all in this together, we're all part of the same insurance system. that would not scare the american people. >> jon meacham, we brought you here to bring up arcain, historical facts that would make you feel better. >> i don't you made the right call. >> i'm going to show you a cartoon from 1937, the type of cartoons you look at. >> that's when you were young. >> this is a cartoon that illustrates that president obama is not the first president to scuffle with the supreme court. fdr did it famously. jackson as well. this goes all the way back to thomas jefferson. >> yes.

john adams. whenever we have great wars over the judiciary, the role of the supreme court is at a time when we're settling huge issues in the national -- in national life. john adams wanted to create a federalist enclave because he felt that thomas jefferson was bringing this french revolutionary wave into office. that was a midnight appointment. that's how we got judicial review. was by john marshall, a very politically astute, much like a lot of these justices, a politically astute justice. jackson had it, lincoln had it, fdr tried to pack the court. and overreached and was pulled back. >> what's the historical impact for barack obama, though, if the signature piece of legislation that he spent his first two years -- after a huge election, a change election, is overturned 5-4, what's the historical impact not just for the president but for the court? >> i think it's -- i think it will be a permanent black eye. this is the great achievement.

>> for the president or the court. >> for the president. >> for the president. >> for the president. as joe biden told us inadvertently -- >> yes, exactly. >> this was a big deal. so the vice president was right there. and it is -- it was, it is. but if it's çoverturned by the court, you have the system as we've come to use it and it works so well for so long, saying, no. >> harold ford, the court, the politics, specifically the wisconsin, the front page of "the new york times" this morning talks about how mitt romney could in effect lock the nomination down. i want i don't you to look at numbers that suggest problems ahead as he goes back to wisconsin in the general election, in in fact that happens. there's the new nbc news/maris poll that shows in the swing state, barack obama beating mitt romney 52% to 35%. the bad news for romney and the republicans doesn't end there. quinnipiac put out matchups as

well in swing states, florida, barack obama, a state where he's been in the low 40s for the past two years ahead by 7 points over romney. you move forward to other states, in ohio he's 6 points ahead of romney. then in pennsylvania, 3 points ahead of romney. that of course closer because a lot of people in pennsylvania have actually seen barack obama bowl. what does mitt romney do to turn things around? >> once the primary ends, the race becomes one-on-one. you and i know having been in races, primaries can be gruelling and ugly and distasteful. once you move past it, people embrace a different kind of ethics for politics. three or four weeks ago, president obama was running even with romney or behind him in some of the battleground stakes. once you turn the argument, the every day argument of the role of got in our every day lives, they will have a conversation and debate.

>> -- overturning president obama's legislation 5-4, doesn't that end up helping the president and helping democrats, they can run against the citizens united court, a court that's out of control, again, 5-4? >> i don't know. who knows if they're going to overturn it. i'll take your assumption. if that happens, remember, the majority of americans as tom friedman said, don't know what's in the bill or what the law states to protect them or, two, they're in the in support of that. no democrat i know up for re-election for congress or the senate is out touting his or her vote for this health care bill. if it's overturned i think you'll have a large debate around the role of government, trade, education, for that matter, enentitlements and taxes. i was privy to an aarp call, you are 6,000 people participate in the call. you know what the number one question was, did the bill pass?

>> tom friedman, as we talk about mitt romney, i want to tk most telling number of the week that's come out in polls. and it was from "the washington post"/abc poll that talked about favorability ratings. right now mitt romney's favorable ratings, 34%. unfavorable, 50%. that's unheard of for a leading contender at this stage of the process. look back historically at what republicans have enjoyed. if you look at the approval ratings, john mccain had at this point in the campaign, 53%. george w. bush and bob dole, 49%. mitt romney down at 34%. tom, does this speak more to mitt romney or a bigger problem with the republican party or the political system as we know it in 2012? >> i think it's two things. i think it is the fact that in my view the republican party is no longer a conservative party. it's become a radical party on a lot of the key issues. that's number one. number two, i just came back from new zealand, okay, you have people living in the outback of

australia who look at mitt romney, say, not authentic. i mean, you know this is a guy who's running against everything he's believed his whole life. and it's just so staggeringly obviously. >> one thing quickly, if you look at the gallup presidential approval numbers, only three presidents have been below 50% at this point, truman, carter, jonchs h.w. bush. only one of them won. >> the president's numbers float from the low 40s -- >> again, everybody who has won re-election since truman has been above 50%. >> it looks like it may be a vote for none of the above. we'll be right back. we have to take a quick break. coming up, the politics of rising gas we know why we're here. ♪ to connect our forces to what they need, when they need it. ♪

to help troops see danger, before it sees them. ♪ to answer the call of the brave and bring them safely home. [ female announcer ] around the globe, the people of boeing are working together, to support and protect all who serve. that's why we're here. ♪ two of the most important are energy security and economic growth. north america actually has one of the largest oil reserves in the world. a large part of that is oil sands. this resource has the ability to create hundreds of thousands of jobs. at our kearl project in canada, we'll be able to produce these oil sands with the same emissions as many other oils and that's a huge breakthrough. that's good for our country's energy security and our economy.

not in this economy. we also have zero free time, and my dad moving in. so we went to fidelity. we looked at our family's goals and some ways to help us get there. they helped me fix my economy, the one in my house. now they're managing my investments for me. and with fidelity, getting back on track was easier than i thought. call or come in today to take control of your personal economy. get one-on-one help from america's retirement leader. we're back.

"meet the press," more with our roundtable. mika? >> mitt romney can't seem to get out of his own way, especially when it comes to looking like a rich guy who's out of touch. take a look at these clips. >> one is we could raise taxes on people. >> corporation! >> corporations are people, my friend. >> rick, i'll tell you what, 10,000 bucks? >> i like being able to fire people that provide services to me. >> i'm not concerned about the very poor. we have a safety net there. if it needs repair, i'll fix it. >> i drive a mustang and a chevy pickup truck. ann drives a couple cadillacs, actually. >> not as closely as many of the most ardent fans but i have great friends that are nascar team owners. >> and then, david brooks, word comes out this week, possibly from another campaign that he's building a massive beach house with an elevator for his cars. >> yes. who doesn't need that? >> it gets worse.

>> several of his beach houses don't have elevators. >> but the other part, in a town hall this week he was talking about a humorous story. he founded it humorous to tell the story about his father closing a plant. how bad is this for mitt romney? does it represent something deeper? and for the republican party? >> well, it's hard to get good help these days. >> you can't even help yourself. >> no, no. he needs to take charm lessons from donald trump. the guy has money, trump has money, trump is fine with this. he has to be fine with it but he has to compensate. there's a poll today, what one word do you think about when you think of mitt romney? ¿ c1 wealthy was number one. that's a problem. the kennedy family figured out how to deal with that. you don't deny that you're rich but you go to places to show you relate to people who aren't. kennedy went to appalachian.

that's where the republican party is, white working class voters. spend the next three months with them. hang around with them, show you care about social mobility. >> jon meacham, the kennedys did know how to do this. we showed an fdr cartoon. the famous quote from the person who was weeping when he saw fdr's coffin go past, did you know him? no. but he knew me. nobody would say that about mitt romney right now. but we've had wealthy people run for office quite successfully. >> quite successfully. i think part of it is they were all comfortable in their own skin. and they all were very practical, pragmatic politicians. nobody would accuse franklin roosevelt or john kennedy of being strictly ideological by any means. but they were able to make peace with themselves and then make a political pitch to the country about their vision and where they wanted it to go. if you try to pretend what

you're not going to be, ronald reagan said the camera never lies. ultimately the camera will out. and this is politics these days is about usually very wealthy people running. and i think people don't mind that because people love to be wealthy. but they want someone who -- to go to tom's point, that even in new zealand they will think you're authentic. >> mika, there's no doubt the white house is going to exploit this. >> they're running on this. >> even now, the president has four or five events scheduled in the next two weeks, they told me yesterday, that's going to be focused around the buffett rule and about people paying their fair share. they think it's a great counter to mitt romney and a great counter to paul ryan's budget, which they contend does not match in the world of 99% versus the 1%. they believe their message matches the moment. >> tom friedman also, of course, encountered this past week where the president tried to strip oil

companies of certain tax breaks and incentives. the republican senate and a few democrats blocked that. but how big of an issue are gas prices going to be moving forward through the fall? >> they're clearly big issues. anytime in the past we've seen them, they can be debilitating for whoever is in power. joe, i'm a big believer that the world is getting flat, hot and crowded. global warming and thereç will just be more people. a lot of people don't believe in hot. take that off. you better believe the world is getting flat and crowded. more people and more who want to live like us, drive american cars, live in american homes and eat american big mac. in a flat and crowded world, prices will only go one way. we need a grand bargain between the industry and the environmental community that says we're going to exploit this bounty we have of natural gas but we'll do it at the highest

environmental standards and with a strategy, not just all of the above. that's not a strategy. energy strategy that puts us on a course for using less energy, much greater efficiency, and to more renewables. so we aren't in this position in another four years. >> you support the president's policies that were struck down in the senate this week. you also said a higher gas tax is not a bad thing. >> absolutely. you have to find a way to diminish issues and encourage use of renewables. we're always in the same place because we never put ourselves on a trajectory to get out of this place. >> the president is probably not going to support gas taxes right now. i want to show you a graph that i believe david showed last week. gas prices have been going up. you said in a recent "wall street journal" column that while the president can't control a lot when it comes to gas prices, he can make things a bit easier for consumers. your "wall street journal" editorial says a tax and energy

plan to reflect obama, mr. obama should work with our leading energy companies instead of fighting them. domestic energy companies contribute to our economy, support millions of american jobs and retirement accounts and some like exxonmobil are investing in the energy solutions of tomorrow like fuel from algae. yet the president continues to use them as his rhetorical foil, call for higher taxes may bring applause at partisan political events but it won't lower energy prices. are you saying the president is working against consumers at the pump? >> no. all of the above energy strategy that tom laid out and the president articulates at times is not altogether pursued. take, for example, the vote in the senate last week. the reductions enjoyed by the oil companies are enjoyed by all u.s. manufacturers. to single out oil companies at a time when gas prices are high -- >> 8 billion in profits. >> mika, that doesn't go to a guy named exxonmobil.

we don't complain when other large u.s. companies do well, we applaud them as we should. >> i believe in the free market system. i'm a democrat that believes in lowering taxes and creating opportunities for ifnnvation to flourish and growth to flourish as tom and david write about. the problem i have with the president on this issue, we may bring an applause line but it's not going to advance the cause of lowering gas prices. what i want to see him do this if he gets re-elected. i'd much rather take the former. >> we have to leave it there. tom friedman, next time you're down under, tell the aborigines we have conservative democrats in america. one. but he's here. . >> we go, watch david gregory's "press pass" conversation with melanie bloom, the widow of the

late nbc news' david bloom. she's the national spokesperson for the coalition to prevent deep vein thrombosis, the condition that killed her husband nine years ago this week. it's on the "meet the press" blog at presspass.msnbc.com. that's all we have for today. david gregory will be back next week, easter sun with a special david gregory will be back next [ scott ] i grew up playingcial with little toy trains and now i build them.

i am a bigger is better kind of guy. i absolutely love building locomotives. i knew i wanted to design locomotives from when i was very young. [ jahmil ] from the outside it looks like such a simple device. when you actually get down into the bare bones of it, there's so much technology that's submerged. [ rob ] my welds are a signature, i could tell my welds apart from anybody's. you lay down that nice bead and you look at it, i love it. they don't go together by themselves. there are a lot of little parts, and everyone has their job. [ scott ] i'd love to see it out there on the open tracks. and when i see it, i'm gonna know that i helped build that thing. [ train whistle blows ] here she comes! [ bell clanging ] [ train whistle blows ] wow! [ charlie ] well, it's one thing seeing them built, but then to see them out here, pulling freight across america, it makes us proud. ♪ and 30 minutes a week, it makes us proud. your mood improves.

friends will want to know, "what's your secret? mine is cross training and running. you'll be happier and healthier the more you know. -- captions by vitac -- www.vitac.com you'll be happier and healthier

[ male announcer ] for our families... our neighbors... and our communities... america's beverage companies have created a wide range of new choices. developing smaller portion sizes and more low- & no-calorie beverages... adding clear calorie labels so you know exactly what you're choosing... and in schools, replacing full-calorie soft drinks with lower-calorie options. with more choices and fewer calories, america's beverage companies are delivering.